United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60501

Summary Calendar

Antoine Celestin, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A203 803 755

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Antoine Celestin, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of 

an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the 

denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture. We DENY the petition.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 1, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60501 Document: 00516112600 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2021
No. 20-60501

2

We review a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision and 

consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the 

BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings 

are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal determinations are reviewed 

de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Under 

the substantial evidence standard, we may not overturn a factual finding 

unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 

F.3d 766, 769 (5th Cir. 2019). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion for 

remand for abuse of discretion. Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1062 

(5th Cir. 2020).

Celestin argues that the BIA erred by affirming the immigration 

judge’s determination without considering the evidence he presented with 

his brief to the BIA. The BIA noted that it did not consider new evidence 

presented for the first time on appeal. The BIA treated Celestin’s submission 

of evidence as a motion to remand and then denied the motion because the 

evidence did not alter the outcome of the case. As Celestin admits in his 

brief, the evidence simply corroborates his testimony, which was found to be 

credible. This was not an abuse of the BIA’s discretion. See Suate-Orellana, 

979 F.3d at 1062. 

Celestin also argues that the BIA erred in finding that he had not 

suffered past persecution because the Haitian government was unwilling to 

help him. Celestin testified, however, that he did not report his alleged abuse 

to the police out of fear for his safety from the perpetrators. We agree with 

another panel of this court that whether a petitioner has reported private 

violence to police is one factor that may be considered, as is the futility of 

reporting such violence. See Arevalo-Velasquez v. Whitaker, 752 F. App’x 

200, 201 (5th Cir. 2021). In rejecting Celestin’s assertions of past 

persecution and “additional harm in the future,” the BIA specifically 

discussed the incidents he related about his life in Haiti as well as his two 

Case: 20-60501 Document: 00516112600 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2021
No. 20-60501

3

return trips to there while he lived in Chile. The BIA found that nothing in 

his testimony showed that any past harm was inflicted by or with the 

acquiescence of the government. Though the record supports that he was 

mistreated, the incidents do not show that he was targeted as an individual 

and do not compel a finding of past persecution in light of his testimony that 

he was able to return to Haiti for his parents’ funerals without incident. See 

Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 909–10 (5th Cir. 2019). The evidence does not 

cause us to disturb the findings of the BIA with regards to the asylum claim. 

The harm described in this case does not qualify as past persecution. See 

Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Similarly, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that there is 

an objectively reasonable, well-founded fear of future persecution. See LopezGomez, 263 F.3d at 445. Not only did the BIA find that Celestin produced no 

“credible, direct or specific evidence” that the Haitian government was 

unwilling or unable to protect him from people who wanted to harm him for 

being a homosexual male, but the scant evidence in the record supporting 

Celestin’s claim does not compel a conclusion that Celestin has a wellfounded fear of future prosecution. Thus, Celestin has not shown that the 

BIA erred in affirming the denial of his application for asylum. Because the 

standard of proof is higher for withholding of removal than it is for asylum, 

the challenge to the denial of the application for withholding of removal fails 

as well. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012).

Celestin also challenges the BIA’s finding that he had not shown that 

it was more likely than not that he would be tortured with the acquiescence 

of the government if removed to Haiti. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907

(5th Cir. 2002). Celestin did not present any evidence for his Convention 

Against Torture claim that differed from his asylum or withholding of 

removal claim. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 659 (5th Cir. 2012). He has 

Case: 20-60501 Document: 00516112600 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/01/2021
No. 20-60501

4

not shown that the BIA erred in affirming the denial of his application for 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 20-60501 Document: 00516112600 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/01/2021